Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Ugly facts have a remarkable ability to kill beautiful theories. Best avoid them.

I can't begin to tell you the beautiful theories I have had over time, and these even fit the facts I had available to me at the time (unlike jeffreyw's theory), only to have the entire theory killed by one or two new facts that were inconsistent with my theory. But then, my membership in the scientific conspiracy required me to kill it.

I once heard as a joke, that when asked about the controls to their experiments, a scientist says, "Controls? No way! I've had my ideas ruined by controls too often in the past!"

Here I have published the notion that our solar system has origins from different parts of the galaxy. ...very invalid essay snipped...

Sorry, jeffreyw, but since that essay contains a fantasy about the proto-planetary disk, nebular hypothesis model for solar system formation being falsified "extensively", you have wanted your time posting it.
There is a lot of evidence for the standard model of solar system formation including looking at soar systems being formed !

Whoops, jeffreyw: this is basically wrong. An object being in thermal equilibrium does not stop energy from being radiated from its surface - you are (roughly!) in thermal equilibrium and you have a temperature!

The first true extrasolar planet discovery came in 1994, when Dr. Alexander Wolszczan, a radio astronomer at Pennsylvania State University, reported what he called "unambiguous proof" of extrasolar planetary systems

This is an academic who had probably access to thousands of dollars of grant money. He spoke English since he worked at Pennsylvania State University. He wrote down what he found.

Sorry, jeffreyw, but since that essay contains a fantasy about the
proto-planetary disk, nebular hypothesis model for solar system formation being falsified "extensively", you have wanted your time posting it.
There is a lot of evidence for the standard model of solar system formation including looking at soar systems being formed !

I fear you might be talking to yourself. Jeffery seems to have abandoned his unsupported musings on all things stellar.

Maybe you should add a score of the number of times jeffreyw cites cranks as if he cannot understand that they are cranks!
I can see a couple
* A Mr. Charles Nunno with a vixra.org upload.
* Bill Gaede with his ropy unified theory.

I can't begin to tell you the beautiful theories I have had over time, and these even fit the facts I had available to me at the time (unlike jeffreyw's theory), only to have the entire theory killed by one or two new facts that were inconsistent with my theory. But then, my membership in the scientific conspiracy required me to kill it.

I once heard as a joke, that when asked about the controls to their experiments, a scientist says, "Controls? No way! I've had my ideas ruined by controls too often in the past!"

I have had any number of my elegant ideas shot down because someone had the effrontery to think of them before I did (sometimes centuries before).

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

The master plan appears to be to create a multitude of websites, forum postings and blogs, all showing and saying the same thing in the hope, apparently, that quantity will win over quality (sample below):

Here I have made a new video outlining why no protoplanetary disk is needed. It is called, "How Are Planets Formed".

Wrong jeffreyw: That is a video containing an ignorant fantasy about how planets were formed.
The ignorance of asserting that planets are "older stars" is obvious - stars are much more massive than stars, e.g. the Sun is 333,000 Earth masses !
The video contains

Not understanding the meaning of the word "believed" is bad. In science a theory is believed in when it has evidence supporting it. This is not a "belief" as in a religious belief. This is not that the theory has been shown to be true - it is that there is no evidence showing it to be false!

There is a lie about stars cooling ,shrinking and combining elements into molecules "forming what are called planets".

The Hertzsprung–Russell diagram does not have a time axis that goes from left to right as you seem to think, jeffreyw. A "time line" on that diagram could go from the main sequence to red giants to white dwarfs. Or from the main sequence to white dwarfs.

I am not watching his video. Of you brave souls that did, does he explain how all these starplanets all end up orbiting in a plane around a central sun?

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

Of you brave souls that did, does he explain how all these starplanets all end up orbiting in a plane around a central sun?

He totally ignores this, Wolrab.
His fantasy would have also stars of various ages magically sorting themselves into the order of rock then gas planets we have in the solar system around a young Sun!
And what about asteroids and even comets ?

I don't want to read the whole thread or watch his videos, did he try to explain away the fact that we've directly observed protoplanetary disks, or is he unaware or ignoring that?

My view is that the shear number of factual observations that he must ignore so as to propose his theory makes it not worth arguing. It is as if someone proposed that there is no such thing as gravity (in fact I think we have a poster who has proposed just this). If you make up an idea completely at odds with reality, it is not worth pointing out any specific details. Especially if the poster doesn't appear to answer or change any of his theory when the facts are pointed out to him, and focuses instead that the rejection of his ideas, in essence, proves their worth.

I don't want to read the whole thread or watch his videos, did he try to explain away the fact that we've directly observed protoplanetary disks, or is he unaware or ignoring that?

Believe it or not, that is the least of his problems. He has ignored data requests for mass transfer, has not considered angular momentum. Nor has he been able to explain the existence of things like T Tauri stars

My view is that the shear number of factual observations that he must ignore so as to propose his theory makes it not worth arguing. It is as if someone proposed that there is no such thing as gravity (in fact I think we have a poster who has proposed just this). If you make up an idea completely at odds with reality, it is not worth pointing out any specific details. Especially if the poster doesn't appear to answer or change any of his theory when the facts are pointed out to him, and focuses instead that the rejection of his ideas, in essence, proves their worth.

Here, I have made a quick video outlining why the habitable zone hypothesis (invented in the 1950's and currently outdated) is only half-baked.

In the bottom video I go over the irony of needing to go to creationist websites (albeit not the big bang creationists of modern mythology) just to get a straight answer on Uranus and Neptune's formation.

Here, I have made a quick video outlining why the habitable zone hypothesis (invented in the 1950's and currently outdated) is only half-baked.

We know that video is completely unbaked because there is no habitable zone "hypothesis", jeffreyw.
There is the fact that around a star (e.g. the Sun!) there can be a region where liquid water can exist and that is defined as the habitable zone.

In the bottom video I go over the irony of needing to go to creationist websites (albeit not the big bang creationists of modern mythology) just to get a straight answer on Uranus and Neptune's formation.

The gut is the first thing formed in multi cellular organisms, thus Uranus.

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

Here, I have made a quick video outlining why the habitable zone hypothesis (invented in the 1950's and currently outdated) is only half-baked.

No, you don't.

You spend a long time talking about things that are irrelevant to the point you are trying to make (such as criticizing an artist's conception - that is, a drawing - of a planet), and eventually say that the Goldilocks zone idea is flawed because it doesn't determine whether or not the planet has a protective magnetic field.

That in no way shows a flaw with the idea of the Goldilocks zone. It is only concerned with whether or not liquid water could exist on the planet's surface. "It's the ionizing radiation that takes away the water, not the temperature" is incorrect. Even without bothering to work out whether or not ionizing radiation could do what you say it does, we know it is incorrect, because we know that there is only a certain temperature range at which liquid water could exist, and there is a certain zone around any given star at which that temperature can be maintained.

The Goldilocks zone exists. That it doesn't detect something it doesn't claim to detect is a problem for no one except you.

And no, planets are still not stars.

__________________"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth

Any scientific theory needs consilience of evidence to make it a valid one, multiple lines converging to support a conclusion. Aside from the blatant non-sequitur-ish creationist tactic of "your theory is wrong, which automatically makes mine right," Jeffrey's method violates this principle- his whole method seems to be a linear process of building his conclusion from a series of assertions that have no evidence to support them, only the necessity for each to be true for the next to be true, and for the conclusion at the end to be right. I picture consilience as a spider's web, where each strand not only supports the theory at the center, but also cross-braces and supports other strands. Jeffrey has a chain which is only as strong as any one of its links.

And then, of course, there's the whole "I don't need no math!" and "scientists are brainwashed!" attitude; these, too, are assertions from necessity. You might say they're the most important links in his chain.

__________________I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Here, I have made a quick video outlining why the habitable zone hypothesis (invented in the 1950's and currently outdated) is only half-baked.

In the bottom video I go over the irony of needing to go to creationist websites (albeit not the big bang creationists of modern mythology) just to get a straight answer on Uranus and Neptune's formation.

Rejected. I refuse to follow blind links to YooBoob videos which are proof of nothing. If you have a valid theory to present on a discussion board, then present those notions on said discussion board in YOUR OWN WORDS and discuss them.

Here, I have made a quick video outlining why the habitable zone hypothesis (invented in the 1950's and currently outdated) is only half-baked.

In the bottom video I go over the irony of needing to go to creationist websites (albeit not the big bang creationists of modern mythology) just to get a straight answer on Uranus and Neptune's formation.

Instead of wasting people's time with silly videos state your "theory" clearly and with citations of supporting evidence.

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

My kids watched some TV when they were very young, but by age 5 they were learning to interpret printed words and letters and, after that, got most of their information by reading. This was especially true for how they acquired scientific facts. Perhaps jeffreyw could present the evidence for his theories in writing, at least for them (and for us)?

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.